NJ chief justice: Stop turning municipal courts into moneymakers

Former Monmouth County municipal Judge Richard B. Thompson is accepted into the pretrial intervention program. He had pled guilty to charges that he falsified records as part of a five-year ticket-fixing scheme.
THOMAS P. COSTELLO

More than a year after an Asbury Park Press investigation into municipal court fines exposed the pressures judges face to raise revenue, the state's chief justice has acknowledged the problem and says the issues are "disturbing" and "troubling."

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, in a memo to all judges in the state, said a report from a committee he assembled in 2017 to examine the municipal court system is being finalized.

Details about the scheme, including the towns that were affected and the number of people whose records were changed, weren't made public by the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, which conducted the two-year investigation into Thompson's transgressions.

Watch the video above to see former Judge Thompson's sentencing in March.

Buy Photo

Former Monmouth County municipal judge Richard B. Thompson is shown at the Superior Court Thursday, March 22, 2018, after he was accepted into the pretrial intervention program. He had pled guilty to charges that he falsified records as part of a five-year ticket-fixing scheme that funneled more than $500,000 to the municipalities that employed him.(Photo: Thomas P. Costello)

In February, Thompson pleaded guilty to fourth-degree falsifying records. In March, he was admitted into the state's pre-trial intervention program, meaning the charge will be dismissed and potentially expunged from his record after a year of good behavior.

"The imposition of punishment should in no way be linked to a town's need for revenue," Rabner wrote. "And defendants may not be jailed because they are too poor to pay court-ordered financial obligations."

Pay or be jailed

Rabner in his memo referred to another matter in which a young man, Anthony Kneisser, was jailed for not making a payment the day he was in court — without first conducting a hearing on his ability to pay. Rabner said it's the court's job to ensure justice is carried out "without regard to outside pressures."

In May 2014, the 20-year-old Jackson resident went to municipal court in Burlington Township to ask for community service or a payment plan for a $239 littering ticket. He was issued the ticket for throwing a cigarette butt out his car window, the Press reported in a 2016 investigation into the impact municipal court fines have on the poor.

By the end of the day, he was jailed and had to ask his father to bail him out. It was the court's policy, posted on a sign outside the courtroom, that defendants who are fined must pay at least $200 on the day of the court appearance or be arrested.

Anthony Kneisser(Photo: Contributed)

In 2015, Kneisser, who was represented by attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Jersey, filed suit against the town, the court and the judge in federal court for wrongful imprisonment and for violating his constitutional rights.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman issued an opinion that will allow Kneisser's case to proceed to trial. He notes that the practice of jailing individuals for failure to pay "effectively extorts payment from the family or friends of those indigent defendants and violates their rights every step of the way by converting a fine-only penalty into punitive incarceration."

The practice also ignores that defendants haven't waived their right to counsel relating to a jail sentence, he wrote.

“The Burlington Township Municipal Court was acting like a modern-day debtors’ prison, and this ruling validates the constitutional concerns their actions raised,” Alexi Velez, an attorney with the ACLU of New Jersey said in a statement released Tuesday. “This decision is a big victory for civil liberties. Judge Hillman made clear that municipal courts cannot trample on poor people’s constitutional rights by prioritizing collecting money over dispensing justice.”

Municipal courts, which pull in tens of millions of dollars each year for local towns and collect millions more for the state, disproportionally punish low-income defendants with high-cost fines, Valez told the Press in 2016.

The inability to pay even small fines have led to jail time in many local courts, mostly for the indigent and working poor, the Press investigation found.

At the end of November 2016, 53 people sat in Monmouth County Jail and two in Ocean County Jail for failure to pay at least one fine.

An arrest warrant can be issued if an individual refuses to pay a fine or misses a payment, but they're not mandatory and can be issued at a judge's discretion.

Turning to the law for cash

The 2016 Press investigation into the municipal court 'cash machine' found that cash-strapped towns often turn to the law for new revenue, especially in small Shore localities where court revenue doubled from 2010 to 2015.

Towns have the power to pass new rules or increase fines on old ones. Municipalities first enforce the higher fines through their police forces, then send the defendant to their local courts — headed by judges appointed by town leaders who started the revenue quest in the first place.

Municipal courts in New Jersey have to make enough money to pay for themselves, but experts during the Press investigation said municipalities and judges straddle the ethical line when excess court revenue is used to offset town expenses and property taxes.

In a May 2015 report from the New Jersey Bar Association on judicial independence, a panel of legal professional pointed out the need to study pressure on municipal judges to generate money for towns. Guilty findings — and the imposition of fines — could serve to assure a continuation of a municipal judge’s position, the report said.

A subcommittee assembled by the Bar Association in 2016 to study municipal fines and the pressures judges face found in its 2017 report that budgetary needs of municipalities and the need for revenue to be generated "along with a pervasive bias toward the police" cannot continue to be the focus of municipal courts.

The public perception of municipal courts has been "eroded" and there is a lack of confidence in the "fundamental fairness in the adjudication of cases."

Rabner's committee on municipal court operations, fines and fees includes judges and staff from both municipal and superior courts, attorneys, representatives from the attorney general's office and the state's League of Municipalities. He said it will "bring to light" concerns and offer practical suggestions to "start a larger discussion about our municipal court system."